This ruling tears a huge hole in our ability to monitor terrorists.
Requiring warrants in general tears a huge hole in the ability of law enforcement to do a whole lot of things.
This ruling tears a huge hole in our ability to monitor terrorists.
That's never been the law before. Never before has any court said we need warrants to surveil suspected and known terrorists overseas. Never before has a court said if a US citizen calls them, or they call a US citizen, we have to drop the surveillance.
Requiring warrants in general tears a huge hole in the ability of law enforcement to do a whole lot of things.
jfruser said:This pretty much completes the lawyer-ization of the conduct of warfare, intel, & counterintel. Every field intel officer will have to bring along a lawyer to fill out the paperwork to file for a warrant in case the target happens call Dell Gold Level Support* in the middle of his Death_to_America.ppt briefing to fellow international scumbags.
Vern Humphrey said:You do realize that law enforcement can tap you without a warrant?
The courts long ago ruled law enforcement can evesdrop on cordless phones and cell phones without a warrant?
Group9 said:Well, at least we have the Brits taking care of business.
Well, at least we have the Brits taking care of business. But for them, we would probably have a lot more dead Americans from this latest plot. We just don't have the tools, or apparently the desire, to stop them.
I must have missed that ruling. Could you give the case please where they made that ruling?
IRS CUPS ITS EAR TO CORDLESS PHONES (USA Today, 7/30?)
If you're thinking about declaring a few imaginary dependents this year, don't mention it on your cordless phone.
The Internal Revenue Service may be listening.
Under new guidelines for its criminal investigators, the IRA can use radio scanners to eavesdrop on suspected tax dodgers while they chat on their cordless phones.
No warrant is necessary.
The IRS policy, issued as an update to a handbook for investigators, comes in the wake of a recent Supreme Court action.
The high court declined in January to review a federal appeals court ruling that conversations on cordless telephones are not subject to federal privacy laws.
Vern Humphrey said:Apparently there's a lot you've missed. Here's a recent article on the subject
Vern Humphrey said:Note that while an "authorization" is required, a warrant is not.
In my naiveté, I'd say that the Framers pretty well intended the Fourth Amendment to cover that ground.The Constitution does not say the government cannot evesdrop.
Agreed. But if a US Citizen is involved and the communication under surveillance involves a public utility, get a warrant and have at it.It does not say we cannot conduct electronic surveillance of our most deadly enemies since Hitler.
which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. - Fox News
A special forces raid in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Whateverstan, turns up 17phone numbers in the USA. Maybe 24hrs to intercept and listen to the calls from/to those phones to gather intel before word gets out of the compromise. But let's wait 48 hrs to get a judge to issue a warrant - sure, makes sense.
But let's wait 48 hrs to get a judge to issue a warrant - sure, makes sense.
bakert said:Although I disagree with President Bush on a number of things, I'm not sure I agree with that statement. Who do you see in the wings or on the horizon that would do a much better job considering everything?? JMOP
Just_a_dude_with_a_gun said:Secondly, once, and if they do have to get warrants, a judge, perhaps like this ACLU absorbed, Jimmy Carter appointee, will have to sign it. And they probably won't.